And now the question on everyone’s mind … what companies have the worst ESG scores?

Governance research firm GMI Ratings has published a list of companies with failing grades for ESG. GMI comes up with these scores based on 120 risk factors, including workplace safety violations, regulatory investigations, and bad corporate structure. From this list, we picked out 17 big names and ordered them from bad to worst based on GMI’s scores.

Wal-Mart

1/100 social score:Wal-Mart has a low score due to investigations into bribery; numerous workplace safety violations in the past two years; failure to endorse international labor policies; and use of sweatshops in the past three years.

******************

All data and commentary comes from GMI Ratings. ESG ratings include the following:

Governance – GMI is the leading source of governance research, covering key areas such as board accountability and effectiveness, executive pay, firm ownership and control and takeover defenses.

Environmental – GMI environmental research, provided in part through a relationship with Trucost, focuses on the environmental impacts of specific companies as well as how companies manage and report on such impacts. Key metrics of critical importance include issues such as climate change risks and disclosure; environmental reporting; board‐level governance; supply chain risk and monitoring; and environmental management systems.

Social – GMI provides key social metrics most relevant to identify how companies manage and report on their social impacts and target areas of risk. Key metrics of critical importance include vendor standards, employee relations, bribery and corruption, diversity and political contributions.

Hewlett-Packard

2/100 overall score

5/100 governance score: HP has a low score due to unusually high CEO compensation; significant votes against pay practices; overboarded directors; and an inadequate audit committee.

99/100 environmental score

2/100 social score:HP has a low score due flagged due to investigations into bribery and price-fixing; and use of sweatshops in the past three years.

1/100 social score: Altria has a low score due to investigations and lawsuits regarding “light” cigarettes and related cases; failure to endorse international labor recommendations; and numerous workplace safety violations.

1/100 social score: Wells Fargo has a low score due to a regulatory investigation into discrimination against minority borrowers; investigation into corruption and anti-competitive behavior; failure to endorse international labor policies; and numerous workplace safety violations.

Oracle

11/100 governance score: Oracle has a low score due to unusually high CEO pay with no performance targets; related party transactions; an entrenched board; overboarded directors; and more.

56/100 environmental score

2/100 social score: Oracle has a low score due to regulatory investigations into foreign corrupt practices; failure to endorse international labor recommendations; and numerous workplace safety violations.

Google

Google

2/100 overall score

9/100 governance score: Google has a low score due to related party transactions; non-independent audit committee; overboarded directors; unusually high CEO compensation with no performance targets; a significant vote against pay practices; and more.

11/100 environmental score: Google has a low score due to limited disclosure of water and waste impact; no plans to adopt alternative energy practices; no specified environmental impact targets; pay not linked to environmental impact; no environmental board oversight; and more.

4/100 social score: Google has a low score due to regulatory investigation into privacy violations; investigation into anti-competitive behavior; no formal policy for disclosing political activity; numerous workplace safety violations; and more.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation

3/100 governance score: Chesapeake has a low score due to overboarded directors; ignoring majority vote on a shareholder proposal; golden parachutes; the ability to remove directors without cause; discretionary incentives; and more.

1/100 environmental score: Chesapeake has a low score due to CO2, Water, and Waste disclosure practices significantly worse than its peers; and failure to adopt alternative energy practices that would lower its future environmental impacts.

1/100 social score: Skechers has a low score due to regulatory investigations into “Shape-Ups”; having no female directors; lacking a formal policy for reporting its campaign contributions and other political activities; lacking a formal policy regarding workplace safety.

Monsanto

1/100 environmental score: Monsanto has a low score due to a regulatory investigation into damage caused to people living near a chemical plant;not linking pay to environmental performance; having a waste intensity ratio significantly higher than its sector peers; allegedly causing serious environmental damage in the last three years; not adopting alternative energy practices that would lower its future environmental impacts.

2/100 social score: Monsanto has a low score due to an investigation for anti-competitive behavior; not endorsing international labor conventions; and more.

Transocean Limited

Transocean

1/100 overall score

54/100 governance score

1/100 environmental score: Transocean has a low score due to investigations into its role in oil spills in Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico; not adopting alternative energy practices that would lower its future environmental impacts; water intensity impact disclosure practices significantly worse than its sector peers.

4/100 social score: Transocean has a low score due to regulatory investigations into negative social impacts; having no female directors on its board.